From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disallow setting client_min_messages > ERROR? |
Date: | 2018-11-08 22:37:06 |
Message-ID: | 10368.1541716626@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We could implement the clamp either in elog.c or in a GUC assignment
>> hook. If we do the latter, then SHOW and pg_settings would report the
>> effective value rather than what you set. That seems a bit cleaner
>> to me, and not without precedent. As far as the backwards compatibility
>> angle goes, you can invent scenarios in which either choice could be
>> argued to break something; but I think the most likely avenue for
>> trouble is if the visible setting doesn't match the actual behavior.
>> So I'm leaning to the assign-hook approach; comments?
> My patch used the check hook, but works either way.
I was deliberately not getting into the detail of which hook to use ;-).
Anyway, pushed with some adjustments and work on the documentation.
Notably, I thought the warning message was inappropriate and
overcomplicated, so I just dropped it. I don't think we really need
anything there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-08 23:00:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-11-08 22:26:05 | Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables |